The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database

Transcription

1 The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder 469 U.S. 153 (1985) Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University James F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. Louis Forrest Maltzman, George Washington University

2 $Itirrtutt alinut of At liniteb Atatto Pasitington, p. Q. 2tip4g C MAM MRS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE December 28, 1984 Re: No Mills Music, Inc. v. Marie Snyder and Ted Snyder, Jr. Dear John, I join. egards, Cop ies to the Conference

3 rout gicatrt of tilt Path Otatto Aso'ringicat. P. Q. 21:1Ptg s. CHAMBERS Of JUSTICE We.. J. BRENNAN, JR. October 15, 1984 No Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear Byron, Thurgood, Harry, you and I are in dissent in the above. Would you be willing to take on the dissent?,,mr3tart Justice White cc: Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun J4 v..11

4 Attprsutt Cilourt of tilt littittb j)tatto Auskington. P. GI. 2U )&A CHAMBERS or JUSTICE Wee. J. BRENNAN, JR. December 3, 1984 No Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear John, I'll await the dissent in the above., Copies to the Conference

5 Ihtprour Cloud of **Pita *atm At.*nom, P. Q. 2DP4g CHAMBERS Or JUSTICE Wm. J. BRENNAN, JR. December 27, 1984 No Mills Music, Inc. v. Marie Snyder and Ted Snyder, Jr., etc Dear Byron, Please join me. Justice White Copies to the Conference

6 gnat QIirritrt of tittatita *at*% Awitingtan. p. cc. 2rIpi9 CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE October 19, 1984 Re: Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear Bill, I shall be glad to undertake the dissent in the above. Justice Brennan cc: Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun

7 Auvrinnt (4ourt of tittifttittb $tatto Azwitingtern, 2t CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE December 4, 1984 L., Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear John, In due course, I shall circulate a dissent in this case. Sincerely yours, Copies to the Conference

8 To: The Chief Justice Justice Brennan Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun Justice Powell Justice Rehnquist Justice O'Connor From: Justice White "Et 2 " Circulate& Recirculate 1st DRAFT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES O ti No MILLS MUSIC, INC., PETITIONER v. MARIE SNYDER AND TED SNYDER, JR., ETC. o ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [December, 1984] JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting. I can accept the assertion that the "terminated grant" referred to in 304(c)(6)(A) is the original grant from the Sny- c :11 ders to Mills. I also have no trouble with the notion that the c-.1 derivative works at issue in this case were prepared "under,-t authority of the grant," in that the Snyder-Mills grant en- )-3 dowed Mills, as owner of the copyright, with the authority to )-i t:: license the preparation of sound recordings of the Song. 1-, < And it is merely an obvious rephrasing of the statutory language to say that users of these derivative works may con- z cil,-, 1--, tinue to utilize them under the specific terms of the licenses issued by Mills. But these observations provide no basis for construing the statute so as to extend the benefits of the Exception to Mills, as well as to users of derivative works, after the Snyders have terminated the original grant and reclaimed ownership of the copyright. I The right to terminate defined in 304(c) encompasses not only termination of the grant of copyright itself, but also termination of the grant of "any right under" that copyright. Subsection (6) of this provision reiterates this point, stating that "all of a particular author's rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grant revert, upon the effective date of termination," to the author or his heirs. A..; = sl (-1

9 To: The Chief Justice Justice Brennan Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun Justice Powell Justice Rehnquist Justice O'Connor From: Justice White Circulated: Recirculated. 2nd DRAFT C r. c SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No MILLS MUSIC, INC., PETITIONER v. MARIE SNYDER AND TED SNYDER, JR., ETC. 7./1 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [January, 1985] JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting. I can accept the assertion that the "terminated grant" referred to in 304(c)(6)(A) is the original grant from the Snyders to Mills. I also have no trouble with the notion that the derivative works at issue in this case were prepared "under authority of the grant," in that the Snyder-Mills grant endowed Mills, as owner of the copyright, with the authority to license the preparation of sound recordings of the Song. And it is merely an obvious rephrasing of the statutory Ianguage to say that users of these derivative works may continue to utilize them under the specific terms of the licenses issued by Mills. But these observations provide no basis for construing the statute so as to extend the benefits of the Exception to Mills, as well as to users of derivative works, after the Snyders have terminated the original grant and reclaimed ownership of the copyright. I The right to terminate defined in 304(c) encompasses not only termination of the grant of copyright itself, but also termination of the grant of "any right under" that copyright. Subsection (6) of this provision reiterates this point, stating that "all of a particular author's rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grant revert, upon the effective date of termination," to the author or his heirs. A r.n c4,

10 forgrrtins Qprart of tilt Pitta $tuters Illaeltington, p. c 20Pig CHAMBERS or JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL December 4, 1984 Re: No Mills Music v. Snyder Dear John: I await the dissent. eit/i. T.M. cc: The Conference

11 5utprtuts (Court a tits Pater Oiatte lihurfrington, p. Qr. zegig CHAMBERS Or JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL December 27, 1984 Re: No Mills Music v. Snyder Dear Byron: Please join me in your dissent T.M. Justice White cc: The Conference

12 g6u4rraint (purl of tilt 'Anita Otatee litatakingtatt, p.04. zopkg CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN December 12, 1984 Re: No , Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear John: I am awaiting the dissent in this case. cc: The Conference

13 AI:pre:at eland of tilt Itztittb Mates Vaolltrtgtort, 20g4g cmameers OF JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN December 21, 1984 Re: No , Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear Byron: Please join me in your dissent. Justice White cc: The Conference

14 Attirrtutt 0.1ourt of tilt nitra,$tatto litaskingtart, 21Ip13 CHAMBERS JUSTICE LEWIS P. POWELL,JR December 4, Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear John: Please join me. Copies to the Conference LFP/vde

15 Amprentt ertrart of tilt Atitttt Jtatrif *zuritittotatt, 33. Q. apig CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST December 4, 1984 Re: No Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Dear John, Please join me. 1160/17-' C.* cc: The Conference

16 To: The Chief Justice \/ Justice Brennan Justice White Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun Justice Powell Justice Rehnquist Justice O'Connor From: Circulate NCV 0 1.C3P,` Recirculated- 1st DRAFT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No MILLS MUSIC, INC., PETITIONER v. MARIE SNYDER AND TED SNYDER, JR., ETC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [December, 1984] JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a controversy between a publisher, Mills Music, Inc. (Mills), and the heirs of an author, Ted Snyder (Snyder), over the division of royalty income that the sound recordings of the copyrighted song "Who's Sorry Now" (the Song) have generated. The controversy is a direct outgrowth of the General Revision of Copyright Law that Congress enacted in 1976: The 1976 Act gave Snyder's heirs a statutory right to reacquire the copyright that Snyder had previously granted to Mills; however, it also provided that a "derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination."' The sound recordings of the Song, which have generated the royalty income in dispute, are derivative works of that kind.' Thus, the dispute raises the question ' See 17 U. S. C The 1976 Act generally became effective on January 1, 'Id., at 304(c)(2). 3 Id., at 304(c)(6)(A). The full text of this provision is quoted infra, at n. 5. The 1976 Act defines a "derivative work" as follows: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,

17 sty'l/st!!'' SEEP IA id zed a /6) / 5-- ( ( 5 To: The Chief Justice Justice Brennan Justice White Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun Justice Powell Justice Rehnquist Justice O'Connor From: Circulate Recirculated. _DEC 3 2nd DRAFT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No MILLS MUSIC, INC., PETITIONER v. MARIE SNYDER AND TED SNYDER, JR., ETC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 0 o z [December, 1984] JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a controversy between a publisher, Mills Music, Inc. (Mills), and the heirs of an author, Ted Snyder (Snyder), over the division of royalty income that the sound recordings of the copyrighted song "Who's Sorry Now" (the Song) have 1-3 generated. The controversy is a direct outgrowth of the General Revision of Copyright Law that Congress enacted in? ' The 1976 Act gave Snyder's heirs a statutory right to reacquire the copyright z that Snyder had previously granted to Mills; however, it also provided that a "derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination."' The sound recordings of the Song, which have generated the royalty income in dispute, are derivative works of that kind. 4 Thus, the dispute raises the question ' See 17 U. S. C The 1976 Act generally became effective on January 1, Id., at 304(c)(2). Id., at 304(c)(6)(A). The full text of this provision is quoted infra, at n. 5. ' The 1976 Act defines a "derivative work" as follows: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, r7 -"" 1-

18 I C cc; PPZES: Infy% 'VT ass, /31 Rik) /I, les Aerti 3-q5 To: The Chief Justice Justice Brennan Justice White Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun Justice Powell Justice Rehnquist Justice O'Connor From: Circulated: Recirculated: DEC 2.6 igel CTJ ro 3rd DRAFT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No MILLS MUSIC, INC., PETITIONER v. MARIE SNYDER AND TED SNYDER, JR., ETC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [December, 1984] JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a controversy between a publisher, Mills Music, Inc. (Mills), and the heirs of an author, Ted Snyder (Snyder), over the division of royalty income that the sound recordings of the copyrighted song "Who's Sorry Now" (the Song) have generated. The controversy is a direct outgrowth of the general revision of copyright law that Congress enacted in 1976.' The 1976 Act gave Snyder's heirs a statutory right to reacquire the copyright' that Snyder had previously granted to Mills; however, it also provided that a "derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination."' The sound recordings of the Song, which have generated the royalty income in dispute, are derivative works of that kind.' Thus, the dispute raises the question `See 17 U. S. C The 1976 Act generally became effective on January 1, = 17 U. S. C. 304(c)(2) (c)(6)(A). The full text of this provision is quoted in n. 5, infra. 'The 1976 Act defines a "derivative work" as follows: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, repre- 0 ti O z c/1 [7: x a cr: z z cn )-4

19 Antereutt Giattri of tits tztt.to 19ztoltittgton.p. Q. zupig CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR December 3, 1984 No Mills Music, Inc. v. Synder Dear John, Please join me. Copies to the Conference